“At Monza last year the FIA doubled the test to 5mm of movement for a 2000 Newton (approximately 200kg) load. Yet in 2011 we still see cars with a nose-down raked attitude and wings nearly scraping the ground. How can a splitter meet the FIA deflection and still flex on track? I have a theory for a splitter construction, that actually exploits the method of the FIA test to provide the splitter greater stiffness during the test.”

“We have a very strong basis of the car and a big confidence within the team that we are able to chase Red Bull. Still there is no getting you away from acknowledging that they have been better all season.”

Paul Hembery: “We understand why people have maybe not wanted to run in qualifying], from a sporting point of view, trying to obtain a better result by holding onto a set of tyres. From a fans?óÔé¼Ôäó perspective it is clearly not ideal. From our point of view, if we can do something we are happy to sit down with the teams and try and find a solution that works for everybody.”

“The F1 share issue comes just two weeks after Mallya announced he was shuttering Kingfisher Red, the low-cost subsidiary of his Kingfisher Airlines, which in January was more than $1.2bn in debt, and a day after the company ‘asked its lessors to release $200m of safety deposits to help it repay debt’.”

As I don’t have access to a device that experiences the problem of the mobile site scrolling incorrectly, can anyone who is experiencing this problem and would like to help test potential solutions please get in touch.

As ever if you experience a problem with this site, please follow these steps to report it. This is to ensure I have the maximum information possible in order to address any faults:

24 comments on Pit lane exit warning lights for drivers in Korea

The new pit exit warning will do nothing to help situations like the Rosberg incident. He understeered into the pit exit and Alguersuari was barely moving. The only real solution is to move the pit exit.

For the moment thats the only thing they can do, however for next year they should think about improvements .. the long way around the corner behind the runoff isn’t really brilliant either but its probably better than the way it it right now.

Or they could use the permanent pit facility in between turns 3 and 4 and just shift the start / finish line.

Tilke and his crew really need to be asked some serious questions on how they let this pit arrangement happen. If it was a public road rather than a race track there would be no way that off and on ramps in similar locations would be approved by any engineer.

Traditionally, the pit exits are usually on the inside of the track (e.g. Clockwise = right hand side; anticlockwise = left hand side). This theoretically allows the pit exit to lead cars onto the track off the racing line.

The one move rule for defensive driving to be more strictly enforced from this weekend’s race onwards.

Excerpt: “The wording will confirm that drivers can make one move to defend their position, and must then leave at least one full car’s width of asphalt on the outside (which does not include the kerb) if they return to their racing line.”

A rediculous over-reaction to the entertaining bout between Hamilton and Schumacher at Monza in my opinion.

Furthermore, surely Hamilton has had three reprimands already this season? If confirmed then according to the regulations he should have been given a 10 place grid penalty by now.

Another example of overly harsh regulations which ironically could actually lead to Stewards being more lenient if they feel that the driver deserves a reprimand but not at the cost of a 10 place grid drop at the next event.

Yeah I’m entirely aware that this has been common practice for years Keith, but it seems to me that it’s being more strictly enforced now that it’s being set in writing.

Specifically the part “and must then leave at least one full carâ€™s width of asphalt on the outside (which does not include the kerb) if they return to their racing line.”

The way I’m interpreting this, it seems that this now must be adhered to any time a driver moves off the racing line to defend an overtake; but as we saw with Schumacher and Hamilton at Monza, more often than not there is space for the defending driver to take up his racing line for the subsequent corner without crowding his rival off the track.

Why shouldn’t the defending driver be entitled to do this?

Perhaps we just interpret the statement differently but one thing is for sure, I agree that the one move rule is a good thing and I’d even go as far as to say that it is necessary from both fairness and safety standpoints.

I’d like to add that the main reason I am a bit miffed about this unwrittern rule being set in writing is the way in which it appears to be defined.

I would much prefer it if strict guidelines were set instead of such specific rules because incidents between drivers are always, in some form or another, unique from all others and should be evaluated with a heavy focus on context, or in other words the surrounding events leading up to an incident.

I see this in a similar light to the clear distinction between US Accounting regulations which are incredibly specific and thus over time have become more and more complex with many clauses, whilst European regulations are written more like guidelines which ultimately makes them far more easy to interpret and understand.

Horribly structured last paragraph, so modified for better comprehension:

Such a distinction is akin to that which exists between US and European accounting regulations, the former of which are incredibly specific and thus over time have become more and more complex with many clauses, whilst the latter are written more like guidelines of best practice which ultimately makes them far less complex, easier to interpret and understand.

@panache the way I see it, its been the drivers who started pushing for stricter (bot consistent) punishing of on track behaviour since late last year that made for more drive through penalties.

And the fact Derek Daily spoke up after being a Monza steward about himself being miffed at why they did not investigat Schumacher’s antics and thereby bringing up open discussion of the rule has now resulted in this.
It means the unclear general practise that led to a lot of inconsistent stewards verdicts should be clearer defined.

Question remains (as you rightly state) about what should be allowed and if this is the right balance.
But it seems the drivers themselves are behind this formulation and as they are the ones who have to deal with it on track, I guess that makes it the best compromise in this case.

Personally I would hope it will also apply to the start, instead of largely ignoring weaving at that time, when Schu weaving at the start was what brought this offence into the sport in the first place.

If a driver earns a drive-through penalty, the stewards can issue a reprimand with it. And if the driver gets three reprimands, he will take a grid penalty for the next race. The idea behind it is to punish serial offenders (though the rule will not be applied retroactively).

I think Lewis has been poor this year and not learning as he should be, but I can’t see his struggles with the stewards carrying over into next year. He’s just had a bad run and a new season with a competitive car will go a long way towards clearing his mind of any doubts he’s having.